Speeches

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the situation is not escalating now, it escalated a year ago, when Hamas brutally attacked Israel and Hezbollah helped it to do so. Both Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations with which there is no point in negotiating. We have to stand with Israel in this civilisational conflict. And what I hear here – yes, it is a mixture of naivety, a constant call for a ceasefire that no one listens to, or fear of those who have migrated to Europe in recent decades and are outspoken anti-Semites, or even hatred of Israel. I am glad that my country's government has blocked the defeatist statement that was proposed here by Mr Borrell, and we stand and should stand unequivocally behind Israel in this. And if we are dominated by fear, naivety or even hatred of Israel, then there is an amen with us.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amount of rainfall that has fallen in Central Europe over the last few days has been truly extreme. And most, by far, most of them have fallen in my country. So it justifies me, I think, making three remarks here. First of all, the damage will be enormous. They go into tens, hundreds of billions of crowns. The European Union is, of course, based on a principle of solidarity, and we will, of course, welcome any help in rescuing and restoring it. Second, the lesson. The key word is adaptation, and here I agree. Instead of spending frenzied money on frenzied mitigation that yields no immediate results, adaptation is important. We have made a big step forward. Meteorological forecasts, crisis management and everything else. In fact, three victims so far, against about fifty or sixty in the two previous floods. So yes, adaptation. And thirdly, this has already been said. The greatest damage was in Opava and Krnov, and hydrologists clearly proved that if the dam stood, these cities were protected. The dam is not standing because green groups like the Rainbow Movement have prevented it for years. And we support them here with money. So we should also introduce the principle that if they prevent something and then it has billions of dollars of damage, they will bear the consequences, because every policy has its consequences.

Madam President, Mario Draghi's report is strong in naming the problems here. I'm applauding. But it fails in offering a workable solution. EUR 800 billion per year in the form of a joint EU debt demonstrates more a political instinct of a socialist than any political realism, which Europe needs so much. Let us therefore start where we can change right now in this House. First, overregulation. EU regulation, kills innovation, drives our industries and scares capital out of our continent. Secondly, the cost of living, the prices of energy two times or three times higher than in comparable economies are a silent killer of family budgets and big enterprises as well. Therefore, the climate policy must be reformed so that they do better reflect the economic reality.

Mr President, I remember vividly how Frans Timmermans told us passionately that the Green Deal was the Bible before he went home for the election defeat. It isn't. It's just a political concept that evolves, corrects, adapts to reality. The results of Frans' missionary work are poor. The Americans innovate, the Chinese produce, and we only pay for it in Europe. More and more people are realizing that it can't go on like this. Green Deal it needs to be reconciled with reality, economic opportunities and social viability. Labeling critics as the far right or even blaming Putin for it is really intellectually lazy. And adoring those who stick to roads or destroy paintings in galleries is completely out of the question. I believe that the next Parliament will respect reality more than this one and that, of course, strengthening the realistic right will also contribute to this at the expense of the green and ideological left.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is very good that, in the Union, after the crises of previous years, we are dealing with the system design of the electricity market. By doing so, we strengthen the stability and predictability of energy costs while protecting consumers, both citizens and businesses. Electricity prices will be less dependent on fossil fuel prices. States will have more options to intervene in times of crisis without compromising market stability. At the same time, and most importantly, during the trilogue, the greatest green nonsense fell out of the regulation, and it also respects the principle of technological neutrality. This also means for us in the Czech Republic that we will build our energy mix according to our needs and not according to who dreamed it in various green wet dreams. The nuclear renaissance is here. This is the most important report I am taking away from the electricity market review, which is why I will vote in favour of both reports.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. It was very interesting debate. Just I noticed there were three different areas of remarks. One deals with the healthcare and the impact on the health in the cities, that this proposal, which we modified from the original proposal by the Commission, does not contribute to improving of the air quality. And that’s not true, because it introduced the stricter NOx limit for the buses and heavier cars. And this is the largest source of the problem. On the contrary, if we accept the original proposal, it would have even paradoxically devastating impact on the environment and the air quality, because the poor people, who would not have enough money to purchase new electric cars, and the automotive industry would squeeze out from the fleets the combustion cars already now, then this famous Havana effect will show up. Second remarks relates to the issue of technological neutrality, synthetic fuels, etc. Yes, I was in favour of including this, but simply there was a matter of fact that in this building there was not a majority for this. And even we had not the majority in the Council. So if you ask me as the rapporteur, I would wish to include this because I’m in favour of developing the combustion cars further with synthetic fuels and following the path of the technological neutrality. But to complete the job, we need a different Parliament. So let me conclude again that, despite all those doubts, I urge you to vote in favour of this, because this is the reasonable compromise which guarantees the balance between the environment and the interest of the industry, as well as the interest of the customers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote is an important milestone for the automotive sector, an industry that has always stood as a pillar of innovation and economic prosperity in Europe. Almost 17 months ago, the Commission published its original proposal. In short, it sets the common standard for approving motor vehicles, engines and related systems, components and technical units, but unlike the earlier EU regulations, covers light duty cars, vans and heavy duty trucks and buses, all within a single legal framework. Its purpose was to streamline the rules governing vehicle emissions, tighten requirements on the tailpipe pollutants and, for the first time, add rules that will also affect electric cars, for example on the brake oppression and on tyres that release microplastics, as well as requirements concerning battery durability. I ordinarily welcome efforts to improve the legislation. However, as a parliamentary rapporteur, I strongly oppose the Commission’s initial draft. My main concern was the potential impact both on industry and customers. The Commission-proposed changes, particularly to vehicle testing requirements, would increase manufacturing costs and raise prices for small budget cars, which are essential for working people and rural communities. Higher prices would result in the market withdrawal of specific models and potentially in a ‘Havana effect’. This could lead to people postponing new purchases or only buying second-hand vehicles, and would be disastrous for everyday consumers and the automotive sector. It would also paradoxically redirect investment away from electrification. For that reason, it was crucial to find a good balance between the environmental growth and manufacturer and social interest. This was largely achieved with the adoption of Parliament’s first reading mandate, following constructive and fruitful negotiations with the EPP, Renew, ECR and ID groups. Thankfully, the Council shared my concern and adopted a negotiating position close to that of Parliament. An agreement was reached at the end of the Spanish Presidency – a deal that, in my opinion, represents a fair, reasonable compromise. For passenger cars and vans, it maintains the Euro 6 exhaust limits for buses and trucks, and introduced the stricter NOx emission limits, a key pollutant affecting air quality in towns and cities. Crucially, however, Parliament and the Council recognise excessive costs that would be imposed on the sector if the existing testing conditions for vehicles were revised, as originally specified by the Commission. Therefore, the testing parameters for light and heavy duty vehicles are unchanged from the Euro 6. The deal sets brake particle emission limits for cars and vans, and introduced the tyre abrasion limits in line with international adopted standards by the UN. It also sets the minimum performance requirements for batteries. The deal contains stricter lifetime standards up to 200 000 km/10 years, guaranteeing the better result, return of investment. Importantly, it also includes the phased implementation plan, providing the sector with credible and cost-effective lead-in times. I believe that the interinstitutional agreement we have reached is a triumph of common sense over the entrenched ideology, and I urge you, my fellow parliamentarians, to support this deal.

Madam President, the most pressing challenge of our time is to contain the Russian aggression and to provide, immediately, more military help to Ukraine. We do not need more empty promises, but concrete deeds. We must deliver more guns. At home, we do not need new uniforms, we do not need to build a European army to compete with NATO and we do not need a never-ending debate about extending the QMV. But we urgently need to generate more resources for our defences and we terribly need to modernise our obsolete armed forces. It’s the way to make Europe stronger, and stronger NATO, to contain Russia and deter it. The entry of Sweden into NATO is certainly a great move in the right direction.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this European Ukraine Facility is a very important instrument and we should support it, because it helps Ukraine economically to survive. We should take also in our minds one fact: that it’s not enough. We need to support more in the other area which is vitally important, not just for the security and defence of Ukraine, but for the security and defence of all of us, and that’s our support in delivering what we have promised, but where we are lagging behind – and that’s supporting arms deliveries, in the guns. Yes, yesterday there was an important meeting in Paris, and I would love to thank those who invited the European leaders, like President Macron, and those who actively participated and brought the new initiative into the game, like my own Czech Government. But it’s not about the declaration, it’s about the deeds – and we should do more in the area of our military support.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at a time of peasant upheavals over Europe, the Commission is coming up with another plan, the main criterion of which is unrealistically high ambition. But the main problem with this climate plan for 2040 is completely different. It is an effort to impose a different lifestyle on people, to limit their freedom of choice. Have you, ladies and gentlemen, brought this to the attention of the electorate? Did you openly come forward with a plan for what their lives would look like if we were really consistent? Have you told farmers and people that after energy, transportation, housing, we are going to make meat, milk and other basic foods more expensive? I don't think so. According to the evolution of political preferences, voters are shocked by the effects of your earlier ideas. I don't know where else you want to go and you plan to spy on their stamina, but I consider it a gamble to put forward such a draconian proposal before the elections without knowing its real socio-economic implications.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, you know that I often criticise here, but now I will praise. The news is very good. It rightly calls on the European Union to make far greater use of the potential of geothermal energy, which has one huge advantage. It is a stable renewable resource that does not depend on the weather. The earth releases heat and energy all the time. And not just that. Even those systems are able to function to store excess energy from those other renewable sources. I myself have lived for several years in a town in northwest Bohemia, in Litoměřice, which is a pioneer in efforts to use geothermal energy in our country. Ten years ago, universities, the city, with the support of the state, made experimental drilling, and now, thanks to the support from the Just Transition Fund, we are starting the corresponding investment, which will basically heat the entire city, more than twenty-five thousand people, with this system. This is a step in the right direction.

Madam President, for us in the former Eastern Bloc, freedom of speech is a key value. We are sensitive to its limitations and in favor of seemingly generous goals. Moreover, one cannot help but notice that the aim is often to protect left-wing dogmas rather than specific individuals. For example, the tabooing of the debate on migration policy due to the fear of accusations of spreading hatred has led us to a situation where – and this is terrible – hundreds of thousands of people in European capitals march with terrorist flags and praise the massacres against Jews. Now we are trying to enshrine this taboo in a legislative and pan-European way. Unfortunately, this also reminds us from the Eastern Bloc of a familiar way of solving problems. In your life, everyone has to cope with criticism, which can be inappropriate or even painful. And if it goes beyond the limits of the right to individual or group protection, each State has the means to put an end to it. There is no need for harmonisation at European level. I myself come from the most atheistic country in Europe, but I really don't want to see politicians standing in our court for a quote from the Bible, as we saw in Finland.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today it is exactly fifty-five years since a young student set himself on fire in the centre of Prague. Jan Palach committed his own life to try to awaken Czech society from lethargy, fatigue and pessimism in the face of violent Russian aggression and occupation. Fatigue and lethargy are also beginning to spread in Europe. We mustn't succumb to it. Yesterday, the head of Ukrainian diplomacy said: “If we run out of weapons, we will defend ourselves with shovels”. But Russia cannot be defended by shovels alone. The Ukrainians need weapons, and we must help them and give them more weapons than we do now and before it is too late.

Mr President, the proposed law on critical raw materials is undoubtedly a proposal that deserves our support. If we want the transformation under the Green Deal to have at least a little chance of success, I will raise my hand for it. I'll take a few notes, though. First of all, just as a house is not built from the roof, the submission of legislative proposals should be logical. This law should have been here a long time ago, not only after we had adopted a regulation on batteries, with which we suddenly realized that meeting all the desired goals will not be any fun. Secondly, of course, it is good that we do not want to switch from one dependence on fossil fuels to another, but setting detailed prescriptive targets for 2030 resembles the economic exercises of comrades in the former Soviet bloc rather than the rules of a self-confident actor who does not want to be laughable to others. But the important thing is that the permitting is accelerating, and now there is no choice but to pray that the people in whose vicinity it will be mined understand it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the report we are debating today is built on two key ideas. First, that space is a strategic arena which is vital for our security and well-being. Secondly, that the increased competition from the authoritarian states, like Russia or China, necessitates that the EU and its Member States share resources and capabilities to address security in outer space. It also encourages investment, which cultivates a competitive European space industry, and calls for the continuation of enhanced cooperation between NATO and the EU in the areas of shared interest. All objectives are achieved through utilising existing interinstitutional frameworks or agencies. Therefore, ECR supports this report as the threats to space-based communication capabilities are growing, and the operational capability of the Member States to address these threats is, for now, far too low.

Madam President, thank you very much, I was stuck in the traffic. Paní předsedající, já to řeknu natvrdo. Zpráva, kterou připravovala kolegyně Sarah Wienerová, je špatná. Penalizuje členské státy, které už roky poctivě snižují objem používaných pesticidů, znemožňuje jim definovat si citlivé oblasti, kde se pesticidy budou využívat jen omezeně, po svém, dle místních podmínek, protože je chce definovat od stolu, celoevropsky a pro všechny stejně. A v neposlední řadě zemědělcům neposkytuje žádnou alternativu, jen zákazy a příkazy. A všichni víme, jak se Levice, a zvláště Zelení stavějí k povolování nových šlechtitelských metod. Jsme přesvědčeni o tom, že naše zemědělství si zaslouží méně zeleného fanatismu a více realismu. Ne pro zemědělství samotné, ale zejména pro spotřebitele. Neuváženou regulací ohrožujeme cenovou dostupnost potravin, a pokud neprojdou klíčové pozměňovací návrhy Výboru pro zemědělství a rozvoj venkova týkající se cílů, naši podporu tento návrh nezíská.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission is too late to remember that without industry and innovation there will be no decarbonisation. Yes, we commend that. This proposal contains some useful things: perhaps less bureaucracy, accelerated permitting of selected investments, fiction of consent. But most importantly, we're still staggering halfway: Full support for nuclear energy. Without it, there will be no decarbonisation in continental Europe. Umbrellas and windmills are not enough. When I came here to Strasbourg today, even in this weather, no sunshine and only half of the windmills were spinning. The Council has taken a good step forward with this proposal. Unfortunately, the position of the European Parliament is weaker and the Greens and Social Democrats still want to weaken it as usual. Friends, let's finally gather our courage and let's be clear: without a core, we will not decarbonise. We fully support the core.

Thank you very much to colleagues for endorsing my report for backing a measured approach to emission limits and testing procedures under Euro 7 and, therefore, in accordance with Rule 59, I kindly request that the report be referred back to the ENVI Committee for interinstitutional meetings.

Madam President, thank you very much. I think we had a useful debate, and I want to thank everybody for joining us in this debate. I want to thank, of course, all those associated committees – ITRE, TRAN and IMCO – for their work, which certainly helped to craft my report and to reach a rational balanced proposal. I want to thank also the shadows, in particular Jens Gieseke and Susana Solís, for the excellent cooperation. I want also to appreciate that the Commission is waking up to a more realistic attitude compared with the original proposal. Yes, it comes under attack from the left. I have two points on that. First, you argue with public health in the big cities. I have a clear medicine solution. You should invest much more in public transportation – like we did in Prague – and then you would not have this kind of problem. Don’t ask the poorer countries to give up their automobiles. Just try to watch the highway connecting Frankfurt, Prague, Bratislava. It’s one light commercial after another, transporting the old, under Euro 6, cars to the east. And this is a disaster for the environment. So that’s the reason why we selected this rational approach. And even you – I read your amendments – moved in the direction of my report. So you recognise that this Commission original proposal was not the best one. Nevertheless, the reality is that you continue to press for unworkable high emission limits and new testing parameters, which will require significant cost. Thus I cannot support that because it would eliminate the smaller cars from the fleets immediately. And it’s not just the most vulnerable people. It’s also the lower half of society. The left, in the past, was defending those people and now I don’t see this. So I think therefore it’s essential to endorse, and I hope you endorse, my report.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, almost a year has passed since the Commission published its Euro 7 proposal. Unlike previous regulations, Euro 7 encompasses a broad range of vehicles, all within a single legal framework. For the first time, this legislation also contains rules affecting electric vehicles. No matter which politician you ask, they will all claim to be committed to a sustainable automotive industry. However, the crucial difference is whether the rules being pushed for Euro 7 are realistic. I support the Commission’s goal of producing cleaner cars and improving the quality of the air. But we must also act with due care and caution, not least because the sector accounts for more than 9 % of GDP, 26 % of manufacturing and 24 % of exports in the country I know best. The Commission’s original proposal would have a hugely negative impact on consumers and car manufacturers – an impact which is disproportionate to its positive environmental effects. Firstly, it would divert resources from decarbonisation by requiring substantial investment in soon-to-be-obsolete internal combustion engine technology. Secondly, there are serious questions over the feasibility of the Commission-recommended standards, especially in view of short lead times. Thirdly, the cost implications are a major cause of concern, as they would have exceeded the estimates in the proposal’s impact assessment. This in turn would have led to higher costs for consumers that are already grappling with the challenges of rising costs of living. It was therefore imperative to rework the Commission text and establish a better balance between the environmental objectives and the concerns of consumers and manufacturers. After four months of negotiations, I believe that the mandate adopted in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety largely achieves that. First, testing parameters are not a revolution as the Commission proposed, but an evolution from the Euro 6 parameters, which ensures that the new emission standards remain economically and technologically feasible. Secondly, under these testing conditions, the report is able to correspond with the levels proposed by the Commission for pollutant emissions for passenger cars, and proposes additional three categories for light commercial vehicles based on their weight. Thirdly, the adopted text also proposes tougher limits for exhaust emissions from the buses and heavy-duty vehicles, including levels set for the real driving emissions. Forced to avoid legal and investor uncertainties, specific implementation timeframes have been included that, in turn, are linked to the entry into force of all relevant secondary legislation. Once all the relevant secondary legislation is complete, new types of fully duty vehicles would have 24 months, and new types of heavy-duty vehicles 48 months, to comply. All existing types of the light-duty vehicles will have 36 months, and heavy-duty vehicles 60 months, to ensure compliance. The sixth report also better aligns EU methodologies and limits for brake particle emission and tyre abrasion rates with UNECE standards, as well as asking for more ambitious yet achievable goals for electric vehicles’ battery-durability standards. Generally, I believe the committee report represents our best opportunity at securing an interinstitutional agreement ahead of the elections. Why? Because the Council has raised many comparable concerns over the cost, timing and technical feasibility. For that reason, we can already see the outline of possible landing space for the compromise between the co-legislators. It is therefore essential that Plenary endorse my committee report.

Mr President, for us in the former Eastern Bloc, freedom of speech is key and we are very sensitive to restricting it even in favour of seemingly generous goals. Real disinformation and foreign-paying information must be distinguished from inconvenient opinions. Disinformation has its fixed definition that it is a demonstrable lie spread knowingly for some purpose to an audience. It needs to be kept. Unfortunately, vague expressions such as disinformation narratives are increasingly emerging. Their definitions are vague, but they can cover absolutely anything that does not seem mainstream, a different view of migration, the state of Western culture. Just because the Russians or Chinese say something doesn't mean they're wrong. Surveys across the Western world show that people are afraid to talk about things that bother them. Suppressing free debate leads to liberals being repeatedly dismayed by the election results. During the Cold War, the West allowed misguided Marxists, Maoists, and other useful totalitarian idiots to freely disseminate information. He won the Cold War.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all the complexity, the ambiguity, perhaps even the insolvability of everything that is happening in the Middle East, must not obscure our minds from what is essential here. What we saw last week is actually black and white. The attack of the barbarians on our civilization, the attack of those who choose death, those who love life, the attack of those who kill women and children in the name of their evil aims, abduct them, rape them, and even their own people do not hesitate to deploy as living human shields. The story that takes place there is not about Palestinians, but about Hamas, about terrorists, about those who deny Israel everything, including the right to its existence. And our task here is the only one: not to curse peace, but to stand firmly and unwaveringly on Israel's side.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad for today's debate on water. Unfortunately, it is symptomatic that it is literally drowned among other points, although we all know that without water there is no life. And that's what we all say here. The same goes for the whole Green Deal. We always remember it after we've exhausted other topics, or when we're dealing with droughts or floods. That's wrong. Water deserves our constant attention. In my own country, for example, I am working to ensure that water is explicitly protected in the constitution. Existing EU legislation is robust, but there are also unfortunate trends. For example, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, a proposal that we voted on here last time, is of course justified, but it can also limit access to water if it is too strict. In sensitive areas, the sewerage fee may increase by tens of percent. That is why I would like to appeal here once again to consider all the consequences of our decisions, including social ones. Elections are approaching, and if we indiscriminately touch people's water, it will come back to us like a boomerang.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We have agreed and we have implemented 11 sets of sanctions against Russia, and by far it is a big success. I do not remember anything similar in the last decades. However, it still has the loopholes, and we need to fix the loopholes. One of the largest loopholes is Iran, which is providing the equipment to Putin, including the drones and other high technology. Iran also has its hidden hand behind what happened in Israel a week ago. Ladies and gentlemen, one of the most important thing to fill the loophole is to stop Iran. It’s to sanction Iran. Please let us move ahead.

Mr President, I don’t see the urban wastewater treatment only as a mandatory part of the circular economy concept, but above all, an important civilisation achievement that we should be rightly proud of. And that’s why I am glad that Nils Torvalds has done a lot of work on the proposal we have on the table today. Unfortunately, as always, the devil is hidden in the detail. The revised directive will not affect everyone equally. An example: when it comes to the treatment of phosphorus and nitrogen, the text places high demands, especially on those countries that mostly or entirely fall into the sensitive areas. Coincidentally, these are the same countries that only built wastewater treatment plants in recent years following their entry into the Union. In other words, although the treatment plants there meet best available technologies, there is a risk that the Member States concerned will have to reconstruct them again and thus spend billions and raise the water price for people. And that’s why I tabled the Amendment 253 and ask please for your support.